Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment

[Army 1911]

If the court is saying that permits are not required to bear arms either concealed or openly then I agree with them. If they are saying that the state has no requirement to issue and that permits are not protected by the second, then I disagree. The right to bear is infringed by the requirement of a license. It is as if a license was required before one could opine under the fist amendment. Just my opinion. Oooops, still waiting for my first amendment open opining license. It should be here by the time Obama starts his third term, I'm sure.

 

[JColumbus]

this is the first post that shows up for me...

love my ignore list

I gotta start using mine too. If you can even read THIS. Hahaha.

 

[steve-o]

Doc has made some drastic improvements from his rocky start here.

 

[Younggun]

Doc has made some drastic improvements from his rocky start here.

I agree

The quote function would show what your post is In reference to, lol.

 

[JColumbus]

Doc has made some drastic improvements from his rocky start here.

I wouldn't use the term "drastic". Improvement, somewhat. Drastic? Well I wouldn't call it that anyway.

 

[J. Fred]

I wouldn't use the term "drastic". Improvement, somewhat. Drastic? Well I wouldn't call it that anyway.

More like hit & miss. Better but.......kinda like the saying "You can dress her up but can't take her out."

 

[Texanjoker]

....... The ****? What is it about the "right to keep and bear arms" thing that's so God damn hard to understand?

For the liberals it is all of it..... They just want "sensible" gun laws.

 

[steve-o]

ok maybe the term drastic was a bit premature, but he has made an effort to be a better member of the forum.

 

[bptactical]

The ruling is not extreme. It actually follows the State of Colorado's Constitution that states that while the RTKBA shall not be infringed it does not infer the right to carry a firearm on ones person (not an exact qoute, but that is the meaning). The plaintiff was attempting to circumvent Colorado law.
In Heller part of the opinion states that firearms are open to "reasonable regulation". I am fairly certain this is what the panel referenced.

Recently Illinois has their ban on Concealed Carry struck down in the 7th Circuit Court yet Illinois continues to refuse to acknowledge the ruling.

Interesting times.

 

[Shorts]

Back on topic...

My initial reaction to this particular case is, "Good! But wait...". I don't think state issued permits should be a matter that the Feds are weighing in on. Reciprocity and state permitting system/rules/laws ought to be contained by the state's themselves. Honestly I think that guy is a jackass for taking his particular case to court. Not only did hislose, but he has dragged SCOTUS into rendering a decision on the matter at all. It created a precedent that didn't need to be created.

Now we have this to overcome or be held over any important future cases. I think it can be used for or against us, depending on the case:

"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections," the judges ruled.

Thanks a lot dude. This is a state matter and you should have gone through state channels first, starting with your WA system.

Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits.

It is restrictive, it doesn't recognize a TX permit either (based on the minimum age to purchase a firearm).
WA Concealed Weapon Reciprocity List

It is my opinion the Feds should be kept out and away as far as can be from the state permitting system. If you let them rule, you now have validated them and given them power to regulate. Same reason I don't agree with the national carry permit idea. Jackass.

 

[alexrex20]

I gotta start using mine too. If you can even read THIS. Hahaha.

haha of course i can see your posts!

nohomo

 

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

If they ever try to misconstrue this ruling to mean that only open carry is allowed, I give it a month before they're right back in court trying to reverse the ruling (or however that works). I could just about imagine if every CHL holder in Houston OC'd everywhere they went. Multiply that by the whole country the anti gun libtards would be beside themselves. I'd be laughing my ass off with a big revolver or Glock on my side too. Honestly I like my Ruger GP100 so much I'd carry it but it has a 6" barrel and would be nearly impossible for me to conceal.

By the way, not sure if I read it here but if I am not mistaken this Federal Appeals Court ruling in CO is directly contradictory to a previous ruling by another FAC ruling, not sure if in Colorado or what. Idk what power exactly a FAC has. This will likely end up in the SCOTUS if what I understand is correct.

 

[M. Sage]

Even ignoring the absolute language in the 2nd Amendment of "shall not be infringed" compared to the language of the 1st Amendment of "Congress shall make no law...", that I (and others) argue does NOT limit the 2nd to protection against the federal government, there's the 14th Amendment incorporation issues, and the McDonald case that says the 2nd Amendment applies against local government through the 14th Amendment.

If you argue that state constitutions can allow for bans on concealed carry, then they also have the ability to deny other basic human rights like jury trials, unjustified search and seizure, and other similar measures.